Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1887-05-05

-
consideration Of which said premium
notes were given and, second, that, by
reason OF such alleged delivery on or be-
fore July LIST, 1879, he said plaintiff was
authorized 20 transact the business of In.
suranoe In this State from said dates until
January Slst, 1880.
In the opinion Of this court this view ia
untenable. In the first place II assumes
as fact what has not been established by
any evidence az yet produced in this
cause, viz, that the plaintiffs were actu-
ally doing business within this State be.
fore, or on July LIST, 1879.
Until this be first proven It cannot be
presumed from any thing now actually
found In said certificate, that said state
ment was delivered to said commissioner
on or before said date. On the contrary.
IL must BIO presumed that II was delivered
10 said commissioner on or about Noyem.
ber 29th, 1879, the day of the date of
said certificate. For, it is unreasonable
70 suppose or presume that said public
otiicer would have disregarded his duty
by delaying nearly five months to execute
and determine the suffieiency Of state
Inent when such duty might reasonably
be discharged in less than that number Of
days.
In the second place, we find nothing in
the statute to warrant the view that when
the certificate is issued the authority
thereby conferred to transact business,
relates back to the delivery of said state
ment to the commissioner and legalizes
all insurance transactions which may have
nnnnFFah dauntta kha
Of the statute, between the day of such
delivering and the day of issuing such
certificate. On the contrary, accord.
ing to the correct Interpretation of
the statute, the said authority is not
granted, nor is 1t either begun or OBJ
tanned until the commissioner has ex-
amined and found sufficient the statement
presented by the act, and therefore issued
the necessary certificate, and until the
commissioner also has received the certi-
fed copy of the charter and the certificate
OF the same and residence Of the agent.
| Any other construction would lead to
confusion in the administration of the law
and afford every opportunity for the COM
mission of the dishonest and fraudulent
practice which the statute was designed
to prevent. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that the plaintiff at the time of
the aforesaid transactions of the notes
and applications, was not authorized to
| transact said insurance business within
/ this State. We are further ofthe opinion
that, not being so authorized, the plaintiff
/ cannot recover in this action on the said
premium notes any Of the assessments
| sought TO be recovered in this suit.
The court thereupon proceeded to rule
that, for the reasons shown above, and in
conformity with the decision in Cook VS..
Pierce, II Houston, sos, the applications
and premium notes are not admissible 10
prove any insurance contract; noting,
also, that the Delaware insurance act was
q matter of public knowledge and general
interest long prior to July LIST, 1873, and
that the plaintiff could. by the most
ordinary diligence, have ascertained its
provisions.
At the conclusion Of the reading of the
opinion Mr.. Fulton moved that the plain
tiff be allowed to discontinue its suit and
leave to do so was granted.
The case of James Slaughter VS.. Tim
otby Slaughter was then put on trial. This
is an action on guardians bond for
$174,60. Timothy Slaughter was guardian
for James Slaughter. James came of age
April 7th, 1876 and claimed the amount
of bond, which Timothy Slaughter would
not pay. The defence pleads limitation.
@. 81. B. Day, ESQ.,, for plaintiff and
James L. Wolcott, Esq, for defendant.
The case occupied the attention of the
court until 6 o'clock.
DoRER, May 4.-Oourt was almost
brought to an end yesterday. Most Of
the cases marked for trial were continued
and the remainder settled.
At the opening of the court the Slaugh
ter case was resumed, Mr.. Day closing
for the defendant. The jury retired ant
shortly returned with verdict for thu
, plaintiff for $37618; being the full
amount claimed, including $174.G0 will
, interest.
The court then heard the application
Of Moses Rash to have the sheriff's sail
of three of his farms set aside. Rasl
owned number of farms in various part
| Of the county, but has been very unfor
tunate, and last fall three Of these farm
/ we're sold. Messrs. Salisbury and Ridge
| fey represented Mr.. flash, anu MessrB
Massey and Day the purchasers Aftel
hearing witnesses as to the value of thu
, land, the court decided to set aside th,
, sale Of what Is known MS the Penrose ant
. Home farms, and confirmed the sale o
] | the Cox farm.
In the morning, Eve cases against til,
William Lea Il Sons Company, in which
: Thomas j. BurTis, johnson Willard
| Alfred l.. Hudson, james Cummins ant
j. Frank Wilds were the plaintiffs, wer
, settled. In the Burris case the defendan
confessed Judgment and as on this de
, pended the others, they were discontinued
! The suits were for grain delivered Il
! which the Messrs. Lea demurred pay
ment. Wolcott for plaintiffs and Nield
: and Massey for defendants.
The remainder of the day was spent !
, motions for rules, The jury was dis
/ charged. Shortly after noon recess wa
taken, and court will adjourn this morn
, ing after the license applications ar
granted. The court was busy on theI
Q last night. There are thirteen for hotel
b and one for drug store.